set_play_axis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the binding behavior, the animation effect ('Animates the scatter over the field's values'), and a caveat ('Verify the render in Desktop'). It does not mention side effects like overwriting existing play axis or permissions, but the core behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by behavioral detail and a verification note. Every sentence contributes value without repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential operational context: what it does, the animation effect, and a Desktop verification step. It lacks error handling or prerequisite details, but for a binding operation it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes 3 of 4 parameters with useful descriptions (page, field, visual), and the description reinforces the field format ('Table.Column') already present in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Bind a field to a scatter chart's PLAY AXIS', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes the tool from similar siblings like set_axis by explicitly mentioning the PLAY AXIS role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The context is clear: this tool is for binding a field to a scatter chart's play axis, with the animation effect described. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so guidance leans on implied usage rather than explicit direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.